Back in 1998, I went to the cinema with a friend to see STAR TREK: INSURRECTION. After the film was over, my friend (Steve) and I had a beer. I remember saying to Steve, "I'm sure DS9 and VOYAGER will get their big-screen time soon!"

It seemed logical. There'd been TNG movies since 1994. INSURRECTION was going to be the last (my assumption at the time). I thought a natural progression would be DS9 and VOYAGER getting their big-screen shot. Whatever you think about the arcs in those shows - no spoilers here - I just thought every Trek series deserves its shot.

I didn't like NEMESIS that much. But I did have an appetite for more TNG on the big-screen, I wouldn't have minded seeing John de Lancie's Q in a theatrical TNG adventure. If that didn't happen, I just assumed VOYAGER, DS9 or even ENTERPRISE would be given a big-screen shot.

So, why did Paramount reboot? I've Googled it, but I can't find out the motivations.

Would you have liked to have seen TNG have another movie?

Would you have liked to have seen DS9, VOYAGER or even ENTERPRISE get a theatrical release?

While I wish TNG got a more proper send off like the original cast go in Star Trek 6 I think it is to late now for such a movie as it has been seventeen years since Nemesis. The actors have moved on.

The idea in Nemesis of the Federation and Romulan Star Empire approaching each for peace talks and opening borders could have been a nice re enactment of the events of ST6 though I wonder if the Romulans were considered such a belligerent presence in the TNG era as the Klingons were during the TOS era.I would not want the story to have played out as in ST6 but could it still have ended with a permanent change in interstellar relations, and the crew having done their last important mission together going their own ways.

But we got a crappy story that tried to be to much like WoK.

I am not sure if DSN could have carried a movie, the series final pretty much completed the story.The return of Sisko? I saw how that played out in the DSN Pocket Books and it is not as interesting as it sounds.

Hmm, Voyager. Well perhaps not a movie made for theater but I do think it may have been better if Voyager had returned to the Federation in a television movie.I know Endgame is actually one but I think it was quickly tagged on to the final season to wrap up things quickly so that the staff could move on to Enterprise.

Enterprise? I like parts of it but in general that series was a mess.There was an article about Berman's last Star Trek projects in which he mentioned some of the ideas that were going around for a Star Trek movie set during the Romulan Wars.It would have involved characters and a plot I found rather ridiculous (something about a Romulan fleet of drones hiding behind the moon or something and the main character having to steal a nuclear bomb from people who were against human expansion into space in order to use it against the Romulans)But even with the characters of Enterprise I highly question such a project. It still would be better than "These are the voyages"

Why did the Reboot happen? Abrams and pals were bringing up during interviews and articles that Star Trek's expansive universe and continuity made it impossible to tell new stories, they wanted to start afresh to be able to tell these new exciting stories they had in mind.

Well the movies are basically three times Wrath of Khan, and the comics tell stories we have seen dozens of times in the television series, other science fiction series, and other Star Trek comics.

The reboot happened because Abrams and Paramount wanted to play with the old toys again and pretend that they are all new.

GENERATIONS and FIRST CONTACT were actually decent-sized hits... it was INSURRECTION and NEMESIS that were the two big duds.

After NEMESIS, I wasn't convinced that DS9 and VOYAGER were going to get a big-screen treatment, but I was convinced at the time that the next TNG film was going to somehow incorporate the casts from one or both... kind of a "STAR TREK TEAM-UP," if you will.

The irony is that the timing just wasn't right and it would have been too ambitious. But now? In this era of "universe-building," after the success of the Marvel films...?

Is it too late for the TNG cast to time-travel back into an alternate TREK timeline and help erase the Abramsverse?

What I was hoping for was the third Star Trek age, as far into the future from TNG as TNG is from TOS - new ship, new crew, new corners of the Galaxy, new circumstances, new adventures and new adversaries. I believed that Star Trek was the kind of franchise that could successfully pull of a third generation (or, I should say, incarnation). It seems that I was wrong. Too bad.

One additional thought regarding the idea of three generations above - there was that 1987-1991 period when TOS and TNG productions overlapped (the former continued to exist through movies).

That was great. There is no reason to be exclusive in that regard; as long as the actors are alive and well and willing, you could produce things in parallel. I wrote on another topic that TOS actors continued to be involved as a unit with Star Trek - voice acting for video games - all the way to 1997. That tells me there could've been more TOS content during the 1992-1997 period, perhaps more movies, had there been will for it.

I felt like one of the reasons was the failure of the Enterprise show, and low box office of Nemesis but also, as has already been stated, it was money. It had been off the air long enough at that point to have fans clamoring for some new Star Trek. Sadly what we got wasn't really Star Trek beyond superficiality and actors doing imitations of the original roles. Although I wouldn't have minded the imitations, Karl Urban's McCoy was pretty good, if the movie had the spirit, heart, and intelligence of TOS.

Rick Berman, who was the head of the TNG-era franchise (1987-2005), is the one folks tend to blame for the commercial failures of both Nemesis (cinema) and Enterprise (television) - and, subsequently, the whole (soft) reboot that followed.

By the time those two came out Berman was accused of being responsible for much of Star Trek "no longer being bold" ("moribund aesthetics of Rick Berman were the constrictions that slowly strangled the franchise", to be precise).

For his part, Berman stated that he does not really know why Enterprise failed to attract audiences (I haven't seen his comments regarding Nemesis, but I am sure he spoke his mind about that too).

The one thing he did say, however, is that he believes saturation point occurred - there was too much Star Trek out there at the same time, or at least there was that perception, and people simply started losing interest. No argument there (less is more - and the approach keeps the quality up, by default).

The one thing he did say, however, is that he believes saturation point occurred - there was too much Star Trek out there at the same time, or at least there was that perception, and people simply started losing interest.

***

Saturation point is an issue with any form of entertainment (in my humble opinion).

I felt that way about Superman in the 90s when a fifth title, SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF TOMORROW, was added to DC's schedule. It meant a Superman book on the shelves every week. I wanted to keep up. I felt I had to as stories didn't just stick to one book. But it was impossible.

True, there was to much Star Trek at the time, but the problem also was that the formula had become repetitive. Voyager and a lot of Enterprise just had to much filler, characters that were Star Trek tropes, and throwaway species.

Star Trek at the time could really have used a bit more continuity. It didn't need to have season long arcs (Enterprise season 3 already showed that the producers couldn't really handle it), but definitely a bit more connection with another.

And speaking of bold going, that was the problem with the episodic format. Voyager and much of early Enterprise ended with the status at the beginning being restored so that it would not upset the next episode, there was never any genuine risk of the characters failing in their missions or even suffering the loss of a member the audience would actually know.

Edit: I think another problem also may be that Berman's Star Trek also barely tried to do anything with interesting ideas any more. It may have become to much of a generic action-adventure show.Unfortunately what I disliked about DSN is how preachy it sometimes was when the producers/writers wanted to do episodes about religion or politics.

Roddenberry forgot what STAR TREK was long before any "rebooting" occurred. See TNG and everything after it!

The rot started long before that IMO, back to the mid-70's when he was trying to ram Phase II onto television. What we eventually saw as the first two seasons of TNG has more in common with Phase II than it does TOS.

"And speaking of bold going, that was the problem with the episodic format. Voyager and much of early Enterprise ended with the status at the beginning being restored so that it would not upset the next episode, there was never any genuine risk of the characters failing in their missions or even suffering the loss of a member the audience would actually know."

Good point as we were also facing a paradigm shift in television of the season as a miniseries format. Enterprise played around with some longer story arcs, but it really tended toward what they thought of as safer, episodic television.

What I meant by "(soft) reboot" is - they at least bothered to provide an olive branch in a form of an in-universe explanation (new, alternative timeline that materialized as a part of the film's plot) for what they did there. J.J. commented on this directly, stating that a straight forward reboot (i.e. simply starting again like nothing ever existed, no explanations) would've been "disrespectful". They probably do not consider this at all, but the scenario also opens a door for potential new content in both timelines (the original and the alternate one).

Things could've been far worse - they could've hit us with the whole 'reimagined in diversity' trend, changing gender, race, sexual orientation, species, and who knows what else for Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

I grew up reading comics which were put out through the opposite formula. I am talking about Franco-Belgian comics in album format (A4 size, hardcover, 48 color pages). It started with Asterix, but what I love even more now as an adult are series drawn in realistic style (hence my attraction to New Visions) such as Blueberry, Thorgal or XIII.

The normal frequency of these is one album per year (only 48 pages a year). Now some of these tend to be wordy, and pages usually have more panels than American comic books, so it takes me about 90 minutes to read one (the equivalent of a telefilm - or a 90 minute episode of Sherlock - as I like to think of it).

It looks like very little to wait for for a full year, but getting new one each year always felt like an event, just like going to a cinema to see a brand new movie. Needless to say, the format leaves no room for fodder.

I am very curious to see how the BD album format would work with an original Star Trek (or Star Wars) story. It is still a very lucrative market in Europe, and I am somewhat surprised that nobody tried to utilized the album format for some brand new Star Trek (or Star Wars) content specifically aimed at European audiences. John, I am quite sure that a brand new New Visions photocomic album would be seen as something very interesting among that audience.

Marten:

Rick Berman stated that he was under tremendous pressure from the studio executives to churn out more Star Trek content at the time. They would come to him and say "TNG is ending, and we have all these Star Trek time slots to fill - fill them", so he worked on launching Voyager. When Voyager was ending, the exact same thing happened. He initially refused, but it was then plainly explained to him that if does not do it they will find someone else who will. So we got Enterprise. It was the heyday of cable TV. DS9 was never alone on the air, it was on the air alongside TNG first and Voyager later. During years such as 1996 or 1998, you had two Star Trek TV shows on the air (DS9, Voyager) and a TNG movie too.

What I meant by "(soft) reboot" is - they at least bothered to provide an olive branch in a form of an in-universe explanation (new, alternative timeline that materialized as a part of the film's plot) for what they did there. J.J. commented on this directly, stating that a straight forward reboot (i.e. simply starting again like nothing ever existed, no explanations) would've been "disrespectful". They probably do not consider this at all, but the scenario also opens a door for potential new content in both timelines (the original and the alternate one).



New content in the original timeline is just what I'm doing in NEW VISIONS. And altho it technically doesn't "count", at least it exists. There was a bad moment when Paramount was saying only the Jar Jar timeline was going to be real.

Rick Berman stated that he was under tremendous pressure from the studio executives to churn out more Star Trek content at the time.

***

Although quality and quantity can be possible (it never usually happens for me), I really hate this mindset you described. It's "infected" everything from professional wrestling to STAR TREK.

The WWE does not need RAW to be three hours long. That's too much. Two hours would suffice. I don't watch it because of the three-hour duration, I check out the highlights on WWE.com (do the recap shows still exist?). There is no way I have the time or inclination to sit through three hours of wrestling (not quite three hours with commercials, but let's not be pedantic).

Of course, the "genie is out of the bottle". They're not going to reduce it to two hours. That "genie escaped from the bottle" in the 90s. But less is more. If only someone at the time realized it. If only there wasn't the greed, if only someone could have said, "No, we are not going to increase RAW from 2 to 3 hours."

Same with STAR TREK. I know they'd have found someone else to do it, but it's a shame someone didn't have the clout to do that.

It's not about attention span or anything, it's about wanting to enjoy many forms of entertainment. I love that Netflix sci-fi drama TRAVELERS (renewed for a second season) was 12 episodes long. If TRAVELERS was a weekly show, 3 hours long, no way! Bye, bye! More content does not necessarily equate to better content. It can do, but it doesn't.

Less is more with lots of things in life. It's the same with movie franchises (does POTC need so many films?). It's the same with comics, I actually loved that the Hulk was a character who I only caught up with once a month, only ever seeing him more than once a month if he was guest starring somewhere. Superman and Batman on the other hand were overexposed.

The last two TNG movies had bombed. Couldn't be crappy stories or directing, could it? Nah - not our Studio!

TOS movies had done respectably well. So it seems a new TOS movie is required.

One issue; the original cast is so old (or, sadly, passed) and we can't use them. No problem - get new, younger actors.

Hey, if we're getting a new cast (which they DIDN'T!), let's reboot the universe and we can have our OWN ORIGINAL TOS universe with no existing trivia or history to hold us back!

But they did not have Star Trek characters... they had Star Trek caricatures. The situation that SHOULD have been is, "Here's the guidelines for your character. Here's the script. Make McCoy/Sulu/Scotty live in this story." It seemed more, "Here's all the sterotypical behavior of your character. Cleave to it exactly in this story - and try not to cover up the story with your acting stuff. I'm producing GENIUS here!"

I might have appreciated this scenario:

First thirty minutes is the original Enterprise crew returned to Earth, as the guests of honor in a memorial ceremony for Kirk. They walk out of a waiting room...

...and instead of to the reception, they are transported to Q's trial room or Trelayne's castle.

"Look at you. All proud, all legends, all worshiped. I wonder how you could function if you weren't all myths."

A snap of the fingers and Kirk is returned. "Let's see how good you really are. I'm removing your myth from the universe. As far as anyone will ever know, the Enterprise is a newly crewed ship. You're just tiny little members of your tiny little Starfleet. Your pasts, your lives are the same, save that no one knows your epic feats. You won't even look or sound the same. Let's see how heroic you really are."

Another snap, and now Quinto and Pine are on the Enterprise. Same characters, same ship... but now, they have to prove themselves from scratch.

I know that there are details lacking, but I think that could've satisfied a lot of people. New Trek, new cast... but same characters, same basic ideas... hell, even rehash a story or two (which is an abomination, but if you REALLY want to sell the product...) Let the actors act instead of being constrained to cartoons, and make the series about the heart of the show, rather than the Special Effects porn.

I tend to be one of the people that say that Paramount/CBS doesn't really know what to do with Star Trek. You can go all the way back to the TMP/Phase 2 circus.

To me one of the great things about Star Trek is it doesn't fit neatly in any one box. But that makes it harder for Paramount do decide what to do with the property. I think that they were happy with the TV movies by Bennet. Low budget, tight schedule =big profit.

Trek is at it's best with strong show runners. Braga and Moore on TNG and Harve Bennett and Nimoy.

Nemisis bombed killing the cash cow. Enterprise bombed and it was time for a break.

I don't think anyone has an orignal idea of what to do with Star Trek so you may as well reboot with a new #1 and give it a go. Except the bombs are huge and hurt the studio more than it used to. With the 4th Film coming who knows when and discovery gettingmixed reviews it's a hard time to be a trek fan.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum